@Woiyo9,
I welcome a thread to scrutinize any lies Obama made as counterpart to my threads on Palin and McCain's lies.
But here's a tip: if you want to uncover lies credibly, it helps to literally quote the alleged lie, rather than paraphrase what you think Obama said in your own words; to not misquote him and therewith end up lying yourself; to prove what he said wrong by laying out and sourcing the specifics, rather than just asserting it a lie; and to leave it at that, rather than including personal put-downs and the like. (The latter is a beef of mine with some of the liberal fact-checks of McCain's and Palin's lies too, but I solved that by just snipping the offending parts).
Mind you, I'm sure not every single of the seventy-something alleged lies you listed fail all of these standards. Just that most of them fail most.
What, for example, are we supposed to do with things like this?
Woiyo9 wrote:
32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, no you didn’t.
Where did Obama ever say that he "won Michigan"? Sounds rather implausible, and at the moment all we have to go on is your say-so (or the say-so of whoever originally wrote this list).
Woiyo9 wrote:33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not.
Hillary won the Nevada race in terms of the popular vote, but Obama won the most delegates. Who "won"? You can argue either, depending on the metric you choose. Where's the lie?
(Do I need to remind you that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but nevertheless didn't "win" the elections?)
Woiyo9 wrote:35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
Far as I know - but you're free to actually bring a source or quote proving me wrong - Obama has not said he prefers either caucuses or primaries. The Democratic primaries consist of both, and Obama prepared for both. Hillary's campaign decided early on to focus on the big state primaries and invest little time or funding in the caucus states, and so Obama won most of the caucuses. This is not a question of him "preferring" one or the other, just of preparing for the elections as they were. The pros and cons of caucuses per se, meanwhile, have nothing to do with the assertion of any alleged lie by Obama.
Woiyo9 wrote:41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
Phil de Vellis, the guy who made the ad, was not an Obama "campaign worker". He did work for an IT company that handled Obama's website, and he once lived with an Obama staffer.
De Vellis did indeed say that he made "the ad on his Apple in one afternoon"; and the Obama campaign said that it had been the guy's personal initiative , undertaken in his spare time, without consultation or approval of the campaign. A lie? Who knows - do you have any actual evidence that it wasnt, or are you just asserting so?
Woiyo9 wrote:43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other people’s words.
What does this even mean? Obama has speechwriters, like all presidential contenders, but he wrote some of his major speeches (like the one on race earlier this year) himself. Moreover, he wrote two bestselling books. Himself. So what does this even mean? What is the lie?
Woiyo9 wrote:58.) I never heard sermons like Rev. Wright’s, that have been in videos all day, You Tube - LIAR! 3 days later during your Mea Culpa BS speech you said “Did I hear controversial statements while I sat in that church? Yes I did.”
Obama said that he had, of course, heard controversial statements at the church, but that he hadnt heard the kind of things that were in the videos. True or not? Considering noone has been able to place him in the church during those specific sermons, it might well be true, who knows? What is for sure is that this point here, as phrased, definitely does not identify any lie - it's not even a contradiction.
Woiyo9 wrote:61.) My wife didn’t mean America is ignorant, she was just using a phrase - LIAR. Again, MicHELLe’s comments perfectly sync with Wright’s, Meeks’, and Farrakhans, both in language, anger, and direction.
This is not fact-checking, this is just bloviating. Opinionating. You may
feel, personally, that what he said cant possibly be true and that
in reality, she is just like Wright and Farrakhan - but that's nothing more than a feeling, a personal opinion.
Well, et cetera. As supposed fact-checks go, this is pretty pathetic. It's little more than an angry rant.
